On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 03:59:48PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Spencer Janssen wrote:
>> We ought to look at precedent from most other Unix tools -- they don't
>> install
>> stub configuration files and I think there are good reasons behind that.
>> Consider a user that tries xmonad, but then decides in the end that it
>> isn't
>> for them. We shouldn't leave ~/.xmonad cruft (probably including a 3MB
>> cached
>> binary!) behind.
>> Unfortunately, precedent states that lots of ~/.* cruft _is_ left around by
> many applications;
I mean that we shouldn't create these files if we aren't using them.
> As a user I prefer having the stub config file put there, in
> general, because it makes me feel more likely that I've actually got the
> right file that's going to be read by the program, and a basic idea of its
> syntax.
I must say I don't understand this. Do we expect that the user will
immediately hunt for a file ~/.xmonad/xmonad.hs? Surely they'll seek the
documentation first, in which case we can provide solid information on which
file to edit and how it should look.
> (But then if the app is upgraded, an old stub config file will be
> left there! Oh Nosies!)
Oh, this is an interesting point I hadn't considered. If the stub file isn't
compatible with a later version of xmonad (highly likely), the user will
receive error messages about a file they've never edited!
Cheers,
Spencer Janssen